Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Esther 3:2
And all the king’s servants, that [were] in the king’s gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did [him] reverence.
2. bowed down ] The Heb. expresses a more profound salutation, after the Oriental fashion, than the A.V. ‘bow.’
the king had so commanded ] Bowing down before a superior was such an established custom that one would have thought the king’s command needless. It may have been that Haman’s elevation was so strongly contrasted with his origin that there was occasion for the order to be issued.
But Mordecai bowed not down ] What was his reason? Although we have Greeks (Spartan ambassadors) refusing to bow down to the Persian monarch (Herod. vii. 136) on the ground that it was not their custom to worship men, yet the Jews had no objection to the act in itself (2Sa 14:4; 2Sa 18:28; 1Ki 1:16), and disobedience to the king’s direction in such a matter was fraught with danger.
Two possible answers suggest themselves. (1) He considered Haman as the king’s representative, and, as the Persian obeisance to the sovereign involved a belief that he was in some sort an incarnation of the Deity, Mordecai, as a Jew, refused to perform an act of idolatry. If so, however, we do not see how he could avoid bowing down, whenever he happened to be in the presence of the king himself, as in Est 8:1. (2) Mordecai, as a Jew, refused to bow down to the hereditary enemy of Israel. See last note and cp. Num 24:7. A characteristic piece of Targum says that the king’s servants pointed out to Mordecai that a conspicuous ancestor of his, Jacob, had bowed down before one of Haman’s forefathers, Esau (Gen 33:3). Mordecai, however, replied that he himself was not involved in this act, as being descended from Benjamin who at the time referred to was not yet born.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Mordecai probably refused the required prostration, usual though it was, on religious grounds. Hence, his opposition led on to his confession that he was a Jew Est 3:4.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Est 3:2
But Mordecai bowed not.
Decision for God
But why did Mordecai not obey the commandment of the king? It may have been because he had a personal dislike to Haman, but that would not have justified him in contradicting the will of the sovereign. Or it may have been that, being a Jew, he regarded himself as exempted from doing honour to one of a race which God had cursed. And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua, for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven. But so long as Mordecai was a captive in Persia he could hardly be excused, on this account, from resisting the law of the land. The ground of this righteous Jews refusal must be sought for deeper than either of these things. There can be little doubt, we think, that the homage commanded to be paid to Haman amounted, in this Jews estimate, to that which should be rendered to God only. The stand which he took had its foundation in religion–a foundation which the men of the world have ever failed to comprehend. (T. McEwan.)
Mordecai refuses to bow down to Haman
But on what ground did Mordecai refuse to bow to Haman and do him reverence? The only answer which comes clearly out of the chapter to that question is, that the position which he took was one that was common to him with all his people, so that it was sufficiently accounted for to others when he said, I am a Jew. It was a matter of religion with him. But, that being admitted, the question still arises, What was there in such a command as this of Xerxes to offend the conscience of a pious Jew? Some have answered that, as the Persian monarch was regarded as an incarnation of Ahura-Mazda, and therefore entitled to Divine honours, the act of prostration before him was understood to imply worship; and so homage paid to Haman as the kings representative would be a virtual giving of Divine honour to a human creature. This is confirmed even by heathen writers–for Herodotus tells us that certain Greeks, on being pressed to prostrate themselves before the king, when they were introduced into his presence at Susa, declared that it was not their custom to worship a man, nor had they come for that purpose; and Curtius has said, The Persians, indeed, not only from motives of piety, but also from prudence, worship their kings among the gods. Now, if that explanation be adopted, the act of Mordecai takes its place beside the refusal of the early Christians to sacrifice to the Roman emperor, and puts him on the honour roll among those whose rule of life in all such cases was, We ought to obey God rather than men. But while it would fully justify Mordecai, this explanation is in itself not without difficulty. For did not Josephs brethren make similar obeisance to him? Would not Mordecai after his own elevation to Hamans place be required to bow before the king? and must we condemn Nehemiah for rendering to Artaxerxes the homage which Mordecai here refused to Haman, though Xerxes himself had commanded that it should be rendered? It is possible, of course, that Mordecai was right, and that all the rest were wrong; but it is not absolutely incontrovertible that the reverence here required was of the nature of religious worship. Others, therefore, have sought for the reason of Mordecais disobedience to the royal mandate in the nationality of Haman. Taking Agagite as equivalent to Amalekite, they remind us that the Amalekites were the first to attack the Israelites after their escape from Egypt, and that after his victory over them on that occasion Moses said, The Lord hath sworn that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation. They recall to our remembrance, also, the fact that it was for sparing some of the Amalekites that Saul was first rejected by God from being king over Israel, and that the only time that Samuel wielded a sword was when he hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord. Now if Haman was indeed an Amalekite, it would be easy to find in that a reason for Mordecais conduct as well as for Hamans purpose of revenge; for these descending feuds between races in the East are both undying and enve nomed, especially when they are rooted in religious differences. But then we have no other case in Scripture where a royal title like Agag becomes a public patronymic, so as to be the name of a tribe; and it is hard to account for the appearance of one of the hated race of Amalek here, at this late date, in Susa. So there are difficulties connected with both solutions, and it is not easy to choose between them. Perhaps the first, all things considered, is the more satisfactory. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
Strong conviction
The commandment of the king was very express, and Mordecai manifestly exposed himself to imminent danger by disregarding it. If, indeed, his objection to pay homage to Haman was founded upon a conviction that such homage amounted to something like idolatry, then we might regard his refusal as ranking him with the three illustrious youths who braved the wrath of Nebuchadnezzar rather than they would submit to worship the image which he had set up. But we can scarcely take this view of the matter, as it is not likely that Mordecai would have withheld from the king himself the outward reverence which the law and usage of the country required. But if it was because Haman was of the seed of Amalek, that the Jew would not bow to him nor do him reverence, then intense must have been the detestation of that race, when he would rather run the risk of incurring the displeasure of the king than pay respect to one of them who stood so high in the royal favour. Yet we conceive that he might feel himself fully vindicated in his own conscience for acting as he did. It was, after all, a high religious scruple by which he was influenced. By the law of Moses the Amalekites were condemned to perpetual infamy. No earthly rank or station could blot out or modify that sentence. In this view of the subject, Mordecai would have supposed himself an apostate from his religion had he done reverence to Haman, and therefore he refused to do it, whatever might be the consequence to himself. We cannot but respect such a feeling as this, generated as it was by regard for the Divine law. It could not be appreciated by the other servants of the king, who may have attributed Mordecais conduct to a sullen and haughty temper; but, although the matter in itself was apparently unimportant, it was an evidence of real heroism of character in this man to obey the dictate of conscience at the hazard of personal suffering. True religion does not interfere with the discharge of the ordinary courtesies of life, nor does it forbid our rendering that honour to rank and station which is their due. But when vice and real infamy are shrouded under high rank, the Christian must beware of acting so as to make it supposed that the rank forms an apology for the vice and infamy, or renders them less hateful than they really are. (A. B. Davidson, D. D.)
A little matter
All was going well with this man. His rivals had been crushed, his seat had been set above the seats of all the noblemen at court, the king had made him his boon companion, and had issued orders that the palace servants should bow before him and do him reverence. He was as nearly happy as a man can be whose ruling passion is vanity; but such men hold their happiness by a very frail tenure. It does not look altogether well that Ahasuerus should have needed to give special orders about his servants bowing to Haman. Darius had not needed to do this in the case of Daniel. Had the favourite been respected and liked, men would have given him all seemly honour unbidden. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence. It does seem a very small matter; but when such a man as Mordecai attached importance to it we must pause and consider whether the matter was really so small as it seemed. For it is an unsafe way of reasoning to say about anything, It is only one little act; why scruple over it? If it does no good it can do no harm; and so forth. By such reasoning habits of untruth and intemperance have many a time been formed, and what was perhaps little in itself, if it had been possible to separate it from all else, has been found to be anything but little in its results. The truth is, we cannot separate any single action from the rest of our lives; so that the importance of an action depends not on its greatness or its littleness, but on many other circumstances, such as how often we do it; the effect it has on others, particularly its influence on our own consciences. In this case it so happened that what Mordecai did–rather what he determined not to do–proved to be of very great importance to the whole Jewish people and the whole Persian empire; but he could not know that. What he did know was that, if he had once bowed to Haman, his conscience would have been defiled, as surely as Daniels would have been if he had eaten the kings meat; and polluted conscience is no trifle. A man has to carry it about with him all day, to go to sleep with it if he can, to encounter it again when he awakes, until God purges out the stain. But why should Mordecai have feared that, by bowing to Haman as the rest did, he would bring on himself this worst evil, a bad conscience? We do not need to suppose that the homage enjoined was idolatrous; it may have been nearly so; but Mordecai knew the character of the prime minister, and he knew the fifteenth Psalm: in his eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the Lord. In addition to the knowledge Mordecai could not but have of Hamans character, he knew him to be of the seed-royal of Amalek; and a man with the spirit of Moses and Samuel in him would not recognise the advancement of the Jews enemy. The point might be small in itself, but the principle involved in it was to Mordecai more important than life. The day was not far off when Ahasuerus and all Persia agreed with Mordecai in his estimate of Haman. But persons who act on high principle must be content to find that few on earth understand them at the time. Angels understand and smile on them, but the smiles of angels are not seen. Possibly some of Mordecais Jewish brethren might hint to him that his conduct was rather extreme (that terrible word!)–savouring more of bigotry than of pious charity. (A. M. Symington, B. A.)
The difference between right and wrong shown in little things
The difference between right and wrong may be shown in a little matter, but it is not therefore a little difference; and they who are determined to be thorough in their allegiance to God will make no distinction in their conduct between small things and great. Very noble, too, was Mordecais firmness in resisting the entreaties of his fellow-servants, for he shut up the whole controversy with the simple confession, I am a Jew. He will not needlessly publish his religion on the house-top, but neither will he be ashamed of it in the kings gate. It might cost him much to make the confession, but he knew that sin would be still more costly, and so he did not shrink from saying, I am a Jew. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
Limits to the claims of official civility-
In Mordecais adherence to his religious principles we see that there are limits to the claims of social and official civility–bounds that duty does not allow us to pass in our respect for our superiors. The Word of God is the standard of respectability and manners as well as of faith, and it forbids all lying and deceit, all flattery and all mean compliances with the wishes of others, however exalted. It does not allow us to do anything that is contrary to good breeding and the chivalry of right. It does not allow us to neglect our duties, waste our time or injure our health, merely to please a friend or a potentate. Let it be remembered, to the honour of one of the Presidents of the United States, General Jackson, that he never allowed any visitors to keep him from the house of God on the Lords day. (W. A. Scott, D. D.)
Then the kings servants, which were in the kings gate, said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the kings commandment?—
Mordecais companions
But yonder come his fellow-servants of the palace; what have they to say? Why they Jay to him, Why transgressest thou the kings commandment? And verily, aged man, why? Is it that all eyes may be turned upon you? It is true, indeed, that he is the observed of all observers who does not go with the multitude, even though they go to do evil. Any one that dares to think and speak for himself is sure to be condemned by the many that he differs from; for his position and principles are a running commentary of condemnation upon them. It has ever been so, and perhaps it will always continue to be so, for it is not for the man that lives in the cellar to say what he sees who dwells on the house-top. Some men are before their times, and some men never catch up with the age in which they live; and some men have not moral courage enough to hear themselves breathe honestly and freely. We see this daily as to the press and the pulpit. Is not the daily bread of the printer put in jeopardy if his journal does not meet the popular taste? And have we not seen large bodies of business men combine to starve newspapers to death by withholding their patronage unless the said papers would defend their conduct? And is it not true that if one pulpit has the courage to utter an honest opinion, that does not happen to coincide with the rest of the pulpits, that then all the pulpits and papers that have neither capacity to understand nor the moral honesty to comprehend the poor dissenter open their batteries upon him? (W. A. Scott, D. D.)
Principle seems impolitic
And again his fellow-servants say, Friend Mordecai, consider well what you are going to do. Remember, it is not Haman merely, but his master also, that you offend. Is it wise, then, for you to peril the forfeiture of your place and your life upon a question of mere etiquette or courtesy? It is extremely impolitic and dangerous for you not to do homage to so great a prince. And besides, if you will not bow with us, then you will have to suffer alone. Yes, friends, says he, I have considered all this; and I am content to meet the consequences. It is not a mere question of courtesy. I am a Jew. My religion is with me a glorious reality. (W. A. Scott, D. D.)
Cowardice cannot understand courage
Mordecais fellow-servants were not capable of understanding his principles. Cowards never apprehend the true character of a brave man. Little minds cannot see up into the magnanimity of a great and noble soul. (W. A. Scott, D. D.)
For he told them that he was a Jew.
Fidelity to principle
We have in the case of Mordecai an example of fidelity to principle which is worthy of all study and imitation. He felt that it was wrong to do homage to Haman. In resisting the entreaties of his fellow-servants, he shut up the whole controversy with the simple confession, I am a Jew. Herein he gave an example which Christians might follow with advantage. Have the courage, young men, when you are asked to do what you know to be wrong, to reply simply, I am a Christian. Add to your faith courage–the heroism not of the warrior but of the man who has learned to run the gauntlet of ridicule and scorn, and to follow the dictates of duty uncaring consequences. To quote the words of the greatest wit of his age,–Learn to inure your principles against ridicule. You can no more exercise your reason if you live in the constant dread of laughter than you can enjoy your life if you are in the constant terror of death. H you think it right to differ from the times, and to make a point of morals, do it, however rustic, however antiquated, however pedantic it may appear; do it as a man who wore a soul of his own and did not wait till it was breathed into him by the breath of fashion. (W. M. Taylor, D. D.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 2. The king’s servants, that were in the king’s gate] By servants here, certainly a higher class of officers are intended than porters; and Mordecai was one of those officers, and came to the gate with the others who were usually there in attendance to receive the commands of the king.
Mordecai bowed not] lo yichra. “He did not bow down;” nor did him reverence, velo yishtachaveh, “nor did he prostrate himself.” I think it most evident, from these two words, that it was not civil reverence merely that Haman expected and Mordecai refused; this sort of respect is found in the word cara, to bow. This sort of reverence Mordecai could not refuse without being guilty of the most inexcusable obstinacy, nor did any part of the Jewish law forbid it. But Haman expected, what the Persian kings frequently received, a species of Divine adoration; and this is implied in the word shachah, which signifies that kind of prostration which implies the highest degree of reverence that can be paid to God or man, lying down flat on the earth, with the hands and feet extended, and the mouth in the dust.
The Targum, says that Haman set up a statue for himself, to which every one was obliged to bow, and to adore Haman himself. The Jews all think that Mordecai refused this prostration because it implied idolatrous adoration. Hence, in the Apocryphal additions to this book, Mordecai is represented praying thus: “Thou knowest that if I have not adored Haman, it was not through pride, nor contempt, nor secret desire of glory; for I felt disposed to kiss the footsteps of his feet (gladly) for the salvation of Israel: but I feared to give to a man that honour which I know belongs only to my God.”
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The reason of which obstinate refusal was, either,
1. The quality of the person; that he was not only an infamously wicked man, and a heathen, but of that nation which God had obliged the Israelites to abhor and oppose from generation to generation; and therefore he durst not show outward respect to a man whom he did and ought inwardly to contemn. Or rather,
2. The nature of the thing; for the worship required was not only civil, but Divine; which as the kings of Persia did undoubtedly arrogate to themselves, and expect and receive from their subjects and others who came into their presence, as is affirmed by divers authors; so they did sometimes impart this honour to some of their chief favourites, that they should be adored in like manner. And that it was so here seems more than probable, because it was wholly superfluous, and almost ridiculous, to give an express and particular command to all the kings servants that were in the king s gate, as here it was, to pay a civil respect to so great a prince, which of course they used and were ever obliged to do; and therefore a Divine honour must be here intended. And that a Jew should deny this honour, or the outward expressions of it, to such a person, is not strange, seeing the wise and sober Grecians did positively refuse to give this honour to the kings of Persia themselves, even when they were to make their addresses to them; and one Timocrates was put to death by the Athenians for worshipping Darius in that manner.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
2. all the king’s servants, thatwere in the king’s gate, bowed, and reverenced HamanLargemansions in the East are entered by a spacious vestibule, or gateway,along the sides of which visitors sit, and are received by the masterof the house; for none, except the nearest relatives or specialfriends, are admitted farther. There the officers of the ancient kingof Persia waited till they were called, and did obeisance to theall-powerful minister of the day.
But Mordecai bowed not, nordid him reverenceThe obsequious homage of prostration notentirely foreign to the manners of the East, had not been claimed byformer viziers; but this minion required that all subordinateofficers of the court should bow before him with their faces to theearth. But to Mordecai, it seemed that such an attitude of profoundreverence was due only to God. Haman being an Amalekite, one of adoomed and accursed race, was, doubtless, another element in therefusal; and on learning that the recusant was a Jew, whosenonconformity was grounded on religious scruples, the magnitude ofthe affront appeared so much the greater, as the example of Mordecaiwould be imitated by all his compatriots. Had the homage been asimple token of civil respect, Mordecai would not have refused it;but the Persian kings demanded a sort of adoration, which, it is wellknown, even the Greeks reckoned it degradation to express. As Xerxes,in the height of his favoritism, had commanded the same honors to begiven to the minister as to himself, this was the ground ofMordecai’s refusal.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the king’s servants that were in the king’s gate,…. Or court, all his courtiers; for it cannot be thought they were all porters, or such only that
bowed and reverenced Haman; gave him divine honours, as to a deity; for such were given to the kings of Persia k, and might be given to their favourites, and seems to be the case; for, though Haman might not erect a statue of himself, or have images painted on his clothes, as the Targum and Aben Ezra, for the Persians did not allow of statues and images l; yet he might make himself a god, as Jarchi, and require divine worship, with leave of the king, which he had, yea, an order for it:
for the king had so commanded concerning him; which shows that it was not mere civil honour and respect, for that in course would have been given him as the king’s favourite and prime minister by all his servants, without an express order for it; this, therefore, must be something uncommon and extraordinary:
but Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence; which is a further proof that it was not mere civil honour that was required and given; for that the Jews did not refuse to give, and that in the most humble and prostrate manner, and was admitted by them, 1Sa 24:8 1Ki 1:16, nor can it be thought that Mordecai would refuse to give it from pride and sullenness, and thereby risk the king’s displeasure, the loss of his office, and the ruin of his nation; but it was such kind of reverence to a man, and worship of him, which was contrary to his conscience, and the law of his God.
k Vid. Salden. Otia Theolog. l. 3. Exercitat. 1. sec. 4, 5. l Laert. Prooem. ad Vit. Philosoph. p. 5, 6.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
(2) Bowed not.Perhaps, rather, did not prostrate himself, for such was the ordinary Eastern practice (see Herod. iii. 86, vii. 7, 34, 136, viii. 118). The objection on Mordecais part was evidently mainly on religious grounds, as giving to a man Divine honours (Josephus l.c.), for it elicits from him the fact that he was a Jew (Est. 3:4), to whom such an act of obeisance would be abhorrent. Whether Mordecai also rebelled against the ignominious character of the obeisance, we cannot say.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. The king’s servants bowed This was but a mark of respect to any officer of high rank, and is a common custom in all courts.
Reverenced Haman The Hebrew involves the idea of prostrate reverence as to a superior being bowing on the knees, and touching the forehead to the ground. . Septuagint, , fell prostrate, worshipped. V ulgate, Flectebant genua et adorabant bowed their knees and adored. The Chaldee paraphrase has it that they bowed down to a statue which had been set up in honour of Haman. This at once explains why Mordecai bowed not. Haman required worship like a god, and this would have been idolatry with a Jew. Mordecai is represented in the apocryphal Esther (xiii, 12) as praying: “Thou knowest, Lord, that it was neither in contempt nor pride that I did not bow down to Haman; for I would have been glad, for the salvation of Israel, to kiss the soles of his feet. But I did this that I might not glorify man more than God; neither would I worship any, O God, but thee.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Est 3:2. Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence Josephus tells us, that Haman, taking notice of this singularity in Mordecai, asked him what countryman he was; and, finding him to be a Jew, broke out into a violent exclamation at his insolence; and in his rage formed the desperate resolution, not only to be revenged of Mordecai, but to destroy the whole race of the Jews; well remembering, that his ancestors the Amalekites had been formerly driven out of their country, and almost exterminated, by the Jews. That Mordecai should refuse to pay such obeisance as all others paid to Haman at this time, will appear the less strange, if we consider that, Haman being of that nation against which God pronounced a curse, Exo 17:14. Mordecai might think himself on this account not obliged to pay him the reverence which he expected; and if the rest of the Jews had the like notion of him, this might be a reason sufficient for his extending his resentment against the whole nation. But there seems to be, in the reverence which the people were commanded to pay him, something more than what proceeds from mere civil respect: the king of Persia, we know, required a kind of divine adoration from all who approached his presence; and, as the kings of Persia arrogated this to themselves, so they sometimes imparted it to their chief friends and favourites, which seems to have been the case with Haman at this time; for we can hardly conceive why the king should give a particular command that all his servants should reverence him, if by this reverence no more was intended than that they should show him a respect suitable to his station: but if we suppose that the homage expected from them was such as came near to idolatry, we need not wonder that a righteous Jew should deny that honour, or the outward expressions of it, to any man; since the wise and sober Grecians positively refused to give it to their very kings themselves; the people of Athens once passing sentence of death upon a citizen of theirs for prostrating himself before Darius, though he was then one of the greater monarchs upon earth. The author of the apocryphal additions to the book of Esther seems to intimate that this was the case with Mordecai, whom he introduces praying thus, chap. 13:12, &c. “Thou knowest, O Lord, that it is not in contempt or pride, nor for any desire of glory, that I did not bow down to proud Haman; for I would willingly kiss his feet for the salvation of Israel; but I did this, that I might not prefer the glory of man to the glory of God, nor adore any one but thee my Lord alone.” See Valer. Max. lib. 6: cap. 3 and Poole.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
(2) And all the king’s servants, that were in the king’s gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence. (3) Then the king’s servants, which were in the king’s gate, said unto Mordecai, Why transgressest thou the king’s commandment? (4) Now it came to pass, when they spake daily unto him, and he hearkened not unto them, that they told Haman, to see whether Mordecai’s matters would stand: for he had told them that he was a Jew.
At the first reading of this passage, it may seem somewhat extraordinary to a common Reader, that Mordecai should refuse to pay homage to Haman. But the reason will soon be discovered, when we call to mind what GOD had commanded his people on this point. Haman, we are told, was an Agagite; a descendant, therefore, of that Agag, who was king of the Amalekites; against whom the LORD had sworn, that his people should have war, from generation to generation. Hence, therefore, Mordecai considered the LORD’S command, and refused to bow down to an Amalekite: so that nothing can be more beautiful in proof of Mordecai’s faithfulness. Though his life was at stake, and he knew that the absolute power of the king might order him to death without trial; yet he feared not the wrath of the king, like another champion for the truth of old, for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible. Exo 17:14-16 ; Deu 25:17-19 ; 1Sa 15:32-331Sa 15:32-33 ; Heb 11:7 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Est 3:2 And all the king’s servants, that [were] in the king’s gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai bowed not, nor did [him] reverence.
Ver. 2. And all the kiny’s servants] His courtiers and others; not his menial servants only.
That were in the king’s gate] Where the courtiers used to walk, that they might be on call; and where others attended that had business at the court.
Bowed, and reverenced Haman
For the king had so commanded concerning him
But Mordecai bowed not, nor did him reverence
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
gate = lofty porch. Hebrew. sha’ar. See note on Est 2:21.
bowed. Hebrew. kara’, Kara’, used of idols (1Ki 19:18. 2Ch 29:29). Shahah is the word used of bowing to kings and others.
commanded = appointed or charged. Hebrew. zavah.
Mordecai. See note on Est 2:5.
bowed not. He could not bow to an Amalekite, against whom Jehovah had declared perpetual war. See note on Exo 17:16.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
the king’s servants: Dr. Shaw, speaking of the cities in the East, says, “If we quit the streets, and enter into any of the principal houses, we shall first pass through a porch, or gate-way, with benches on each side, where the master of the family receives visits, and despatches business; few persons, not even the nearest relations, having admission any farther, except upon extraordinary occasions.” These servants were probably officers who here waited the king’s call; and it is likely that Mordecai was one of them. Est 2:19, Est 2:21
bowed: Gen 41:43, Phi 2:10
bowed not: Yichra welo yishtachaweh, “bowed not down, nor prostrated himself,” or worshipped him. Had this meant only civil reverence the king would not have needed to command it; nor would Mordecai have refused it; there was, therefore, some kind of divine honour intended, such as was paid to the Persian kings, and which even the Greeks refused, as express adoration. Est 3:1, Est 3:5, Exo 17:14, Exo 17:16, Deu 25:19, 1Sa 15:3, Psa 15:4
Reciprocal: 1Ki 1:31 – did reverence Est 2:5 – a certain Jew Est 3:3 – Why Est 4:7 – all that had Est 5:9 – he stood not up Est 6:6 – To whom Est 9:3 – the fear Est 10:3 – accepted Psa 49:18 – praise Pro 14:20 – but Dan 2:49 – sat Mar 15:19 – and bowing
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Est 3:2. For the king had so commanded concerning him To bow the knee, and give reverence to all great persons, was a common respect due to them, and there needed not a particular command from the king requiring it to be shown by all his servants to Haman; since, no doubt, they paid it to all princes, and would much more pay it to him who took place of them all, and was his sovereigns favourite. There was therefore, probably, more implied in the reverence commanded to be paid to him than what proceeded from a mere civil respect. The kings of Persia, we know, required a kind of divine adoration from all who approached them; and, as they arrogated this to themselves, so they sometimes imparted it to their chief friends and favourites, which seems to have been the case with regard to Haman at this time. And if so, we need not wonder that a righteous Jew should deny that honour, or the outward expressions of it, to any man; since the wise and sober Grecians positively refused to give it to their very kings themselves, the people of Athens once passing sentence of death on one Timocrates, a citizen of theirs, for prostrating himself before Darius, though he was then one of the greatest monarchs upon earth. The author of the apocryphal additions to the book of Esther seems to imply that this was the case of Mordecai, whom he introduces praying thus, chap. Est 13:12, &c. Thou knowest, O Lord, that it is not in contempt, or pride, nor for any desire of glory, that I did not bow down to proud Haman, for I would willingly kiss his feet for the salvation of Israel; but I did this, that I might not prefer the glory of man to the glory of God, nor adore any one but thee my Lord alone. See Valer. Max., lib. 6, cap. 3. We may observe further here, that Mordecai should refuse to pay such obeisance, as all others paid to Haman at this time, will appear the less strange, if we consider that Haman being of that nation against which God pronounced a curse, (Exo 17:14,) Mordecai might think himself, on this account, not obliged to pay him the reverence which he expected; and if the rest of the Jews had the like notion of him, this might be a reason sufficient for his extending his resentment against the whole nation. See Dodd.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
3:2 And all the king’s servants, that [were] in the king’s gate, bowed, and reverenced Haman: for the king had so commanded concerning him. But Mordecai {a} bowed not, nor did [him] reverence.
(a) The Persians custom was to kneel down and reverence their kings, and such as he anointed in chief authority, which Mordecai would not do to this ambitious and proud man.